A Survey of the Old Testament Law------ "You shall not make any graven image"

Before we get to this commandment, I want to talk a little bit more about the 1st Commandment. God and God alone is worthy of our worship because God and God alone is God. We saw that He created all things through His mighty hand and through His Word—that Word (big-‘W’) that took on the form of human flesh and walked the earth and whom we know as the Lord Jesus Christ. It that idea that must be made clearest when one preaches or teaches. Even this pitiful little blog has, as its purpose, to make known the truth of God and salvation through the Lord Jesus Christ. One way to determine if a preacher or teacher is faithful to his calling, that,

“When we have gone from them, there must be no beauty in us that makes them long for us, the only remembrance must be, ‘That man was true to God’”
(Oswald Chambers, If Thou Wilt Be Perfect, p.31).

That is, when we listen to someone teaching or preaching, they have done their job if, instead of saying “Oh, what a wonderfully talented and gifted man he is”, the people walk out afterwards with all their thoughts being what they just learned about God and God’s glory. That is the truest mark of a teacher of God. I found a little pamphlet called “The Godhood of God,” by A.W. Pink. Mr. Pink was a very dedicated teacher and preacher of the Bible, and when you get done reading anything he wrote, you will have a better sense of who God is, and the last thought you will have will be about God and God’s glory. Well, listen to what he says in the section entitled ‘The Absolute Godhood of God is Seen in Creation’—

“With whom took He counsel in creation? Whom did He consult when He determined the various and manifold arrangements, adjustments, adaptations, relationships, equipments of His myriad creatures? Did He not do everything after the counsel of His own will? Did He not decide that birds should fly in the air, beasts roam the earth, and fishes live in the sea?...Did He not determine to create the exalted seraphim to stand before His throne throughout endless ages, and also to make another creature which dies the same hour it is born? Was He not undisputed Sovereign in all His creative acts?...Why should God take counsel? Could man add to His knowledge, or correct His errors?...God never consulted man about a single member of His body, or about its size, color, or capacity; instead, ‘God set the members everyone of them in the body, as it hath pleased Him’ (1 Corinthians 12:18).”

Amen! In fact, the only duty God gave to Adam was to name the creatures. But He did not ask Adam’s advice concerning how big the earth should be or how many stars there should be or how long a day would last. God said, “This is how it’s gonna be.” PERIOD. He didn’t ask our advice about these things. He did it—and that was that. And that is the God we worship. One whose knowledge and wisdom and power are infinite—but even more than that, the beauty of His Holiness is perfect.

To say that God is “holy” is to say that He is completely separate from His creation—and that there is nothing to compare Him to. Some people try to say that “God is like…” or “The love of God is like…” or anything about God “is like…” There is nothing that is like anything about God. His love is not like anything we could imagine. His power is not like anything we could imagine. His wisdom, His justice—nothing about God is like anything we could imagine. No one is holy like God is holy.

In the gospels, Jesus commands us, saying, “The first of all the commandments is: 'Hear, O Israel, the LORD our God, the LORD is one. And you shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.' This is the first commandment. And the second, like it, is this: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no other commandment greater than these” (Mark 12:29-31). Notice something. We are commanded to love our neighbor as ourselves. The love we have for our neighbor should be equal to—in fact, greater than—the love we have for ourselves. But, when Christ talks about the love we are to have for God, what does He compare that love to? Nothing! He does not say “You shall love the LORD your God as you love…” anything else! Because the love we are to have for God should be infinitely greater than the love we have for anything. We should even count the love we have for our family as being worthy of throwing in the dumpster compared to the love we have for God. John 12:25—“He who loves his life will lose it, and he who hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life.” The apostle John tells us, in 1st John 2:15—Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. We are to value and cherish God more than even our own life. But we don’t always do that. It’s easy to make other things our ‘god’. We put other things ahead of God, and we would rather serve those things that to serve Almighty YHVH. And that is actually a subject we will discuss more next week, in part 2 of our look at the 2nd Commandment.

That said, let’s move on to that 2nd Commandment. We are in Exodus 20, and let’s go ahead and read Exodus 20:4-6—“You shall not make for yourself a carved image—any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.” The command here is quite simple—do not use statues of anything in worshipping God. The people had just come out of Egypt, where they saw all kinds of statues and pillars that had been built to honor their various little-‘g’ gods. And they very well may have in fact been forced into carving and erecting these things. So God obviously does not want the people making statues to worship pagan gods. But God is also prohibiting them from using statues—period. Not just to set them up as idols in the worship of false gods, but God was also telling them to not use statues to worship Him either. We see a couple passages that offer proof of this.

The first is in Exodus 32. Setting the stage. God is still speaking His Law to Charlton Heston, and before He can even finish giving it Edward G. Robinson has already convinced the people that God has forsaken them. They say, “God has forgotten us, Moses is dead for all we know. Let’s make our own god!” Exodus 32:1-6—Now when the people saw that Moses delayed coming down from the mountain, the people gathered together to Aaron, and said to him, “Come, make us gods that shall go before us; for as for this Moses, the man who brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we do not know what has become of him.” And Aaron said to them, “Break off the golden earrings which are in the ears of your wives, your sons, and your daughters, and bring them to me.” So all the people broke off the golden earrings which were in their ears, and brought them to Aaron. And he received the gold from their hand, and he fashioned it with an engraving tool, and made a molded calf. Then they said, “This is your god, O Israel, that brought you out of the land of Egypt!” So when Aaron saw it, he built an altar before it. And Aaron made a proclamation and said, “Tomorrow is a feast to the LORD.” Then they rose early on the next day, offered burnt offerings, and brought peace offerings; and the people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play.

Their thought was, “Yeah, we know that YHVH brought us out of bondage—but that was then, this is now. And we’re all about the here and now.” Aren't we all? God does something wonderful and miraculous for us, and what do we find ourselves saying not too long after? “What has He done for me lately?” Not only that, we are a visual people. We need results we can see. We don’t want to have to simply believe something is so—or is going to be so. “Show me! Prove it!” And that’s what the people do here. Now, they weren’t forming a statue and making a new god—they were building this thing, and saying “This is YHVH! This is the god that brought us out of Egypt!” And God sends Charlton Heston down the mountain to put a stop to it. We’re gonna talk about this incident some more when we get to this particular passage. But we can already see that God is forbidding us from making any kind of carved image and saying “This is God!” For one thing, it reverses the order God wants. Man was created in the image of God—but we create a god in the image of man. Whenever we reduce God down to a statue or trinket, we are fashioning an imperfect image of the perfect God from imperfect materials. And we are fashioning a visible image of the invisible God.

Another reason I believe God gave this prohibition is because He wanted the people to be ready for when he would send His image to walk the earth. Which He did about 2000 years ago. Colossians 1:15—[Christ] is the image of the invisible God. Hebrews 1:1-3—God…has in these last days spoken to us by His Son…being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person. 2nd Corinthians 4:3-4—But even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing…who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them. If I am making some little statue and saying “This is what God looks like” then I am denying Christ because the Bible says that the only thing that “looks like” God is Jesus Christ. But, until God sent His Son, He would not appear to the people in any form, except He would cover Himself in clouds and thick darkness. Which is exactly what Moses tells the people in Deuteronomy 4:11-18—“You came near and stood at the foot of the mountain, and the mountain burned with fire to the very heart of the heavens: darkness, cloud and thick gloom. Then the LORD spoke to you from the midst of the fire; you heard the sound of words, but you saw no form—only a voice. So He declared to you His covenant which He commanded you to perform, that is, the Ten Commandments; and He wrote them on two tablets of stone. The LORD commanded me at that time to teach you statutes and judgments, that you might perform them in the land where you are going over to possess it. So watch yourselves carefully, since you did not see any form on the day the LORD spoke to you at Horeb from the midst of the fire, so that you do not act corruptly and make a graven image for yourselves in the form of any figure, the likeness of male or female, the likeness of any animal that is on the earth, the likeness of any winged bird that flies in the sky, the likeness of anything that creeps on the ground, the likeness of any fish that is in the water below the earth.” He’s saying, “You saw no form when YHVH spoke to you from the cloud that rested on Mt. Sinai—neither shall you carve anything and say, ‘This is what God looks like.’” Because, as we talked about at the outset, God is not like anything we could imagine—so how could we ever build anything that even allows us to come close to saying “This is what God looks like” since God does not look like anything we could ever imagine.

Think about it like this—suppose someone told you that they were going to make a statue of you, and that it was going to look just like you and they were going to bring it here next week and give it to you. Being humans, we wouldn’t have a problem with it. We’d be thinking that it was going to be some carving made out of wood or stone or whatever. But then they bring it in next week, and what you see is this big, honking lump of half-eaten chicken bones and chewed-up gum and bailing wire and lemon peels and mud. It’s a big ugly disgusting mess. And they look at you and say, “It looks just like you!” We would be appalled! That’s what God says we are doing when we try to make a ‘graven image’ and say “This is God.” Only with Him, it’s on an infinite scale.

Because as much as we would be disgusted with that clump of chicken bones and lemon peels, God is infinitely disgusted with anything we might make and say “This looks like God.” No matter how beautiful it may be in our eyes, and no matter how sincere we may be—there is nothing we could ever make that we could point to and say “This looks like God.” In fact, we have a perfect example of this thought in Judges 17:3—Now there was a man from the mountains of Ephraim, whose name was Micah. And he said to his mother, “The eleven hundred shekels of silver that were taken from you, and on which you put a curse, even saying it in my ears—here is the silver with me; I took it.” And his mother said, “May you be blessed by the LORD, my son!” So when he had returned the eleven hundred shekels of silver to his mother, his mother said, “I had wholly dedicated the silver from my hand to the LORD for my son, to make a carved image and a molded image; now therefore, I will return it to you”…In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did what was right in his own eyes. Momma was gonna have the silversmith make a molten or graven image of YHVH in the name of her son. She did, and that son served that image. Now, he was serving the image—but was he serving God? No! He was serving this abomination that he called YHVH. Much like anybody does when they set up statues and say “We are worshipping God by giving reverence to this statue!”

John Calvin once said,

“Moses…had no other object than to rescue God’s glory from all the imaginations which tend to corrupt it. And assuredly it is a most gross indecency to make God like a [block of wood] or a stone. Some [explain the commandment as meaning], ‘Thou shalt not make to thyself a graven image, which thou mayest adore;’ as if it were allowable to make a visible image of God, provided it be not adored…as soon as any one has permitted himself to devise an image of God, he immediately falls into false worship.”
(John Calvin, Commentaries, Commentary on Deuteronomy 5:9)

He goes on to say, in that same section,

“They have always alleged the same [excuse] which now-a-days is [present] in the mouths of the Papists, viz., that not the image itself was actually worshipped, but that which it represented…they will immediately reply, that they offer to God that honor which they pay to pictures and statues. But this frivolous excuse comes to nothing; because to erect the idol before which they prostrate themselves, is really to deny the true God.” (ibid.)

Now, let’s say someone were to walk into your garden-variety Roman Catholic church. Not that I'm recommending it! But, suppose we do, what do you suppose we will see when we walk in? Statues. Statues of Christ; statues of…somebody else. Who might that someone else be? Mary! Gotta have our statues of Mary! Hmmm…now, the way your average Roman Catholic will try to get away with this is by saying (A) The 2nd Commandment is only a prohibition against making idols to false gods (we’ve seen already this is not true) and they will say (B) Oh, we don’t worship the statues, we use them in our worship (we’ve seen from Judges this is not true either). But when you ask them, why the Pope bows down to statues of Mary—when the Commandment says “You shall not make for yourself a carved image—any likeness of anything that is in heaven above [that would be Christ], or that is in the earth beneath [That’s Mary]…you shall not bow down to them nor serve them” they will come back with “Oh, the Pope does not bow down to statues of Mary”—well, below are pictures of John Paul II and Benedict XVI bowing to statues of Mary. We’ll stop right there, and pick up next week talking about God being a jealous God.







Jesus Christ is Lord.
Amen.

Error: "Everybody was Catholic Until the Reformation"

Question: Has the church of Our Lord always been “catholic?”
Answer: Yes

Question: Has the church of Our Lord always been “Catholic?”
Answer: No

Now, don’t accuse me of speaking out of both sides of my mouth. It is a matter of splitting a hair that needs to be split. There is a world of difference between little-‘c’ “catholic” and Big-‘C’ “Catholic.” Allow me to explain.

The word “catholic’ simply means “universal.” Or “worldwide.” The church—the TRUE church—is the joining together of all those who believe in and worship the Lord Jesus Christ and whom He has bought with His blood. Acts 20:28—“Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.” It is my intention to show, as faithfully to the truth as possible, that the assertion that “No other churches existed except the Roman Catholic Church until the Reformation” is a false assertion which is based on a faulty knowledge of history.

Let me make one other thing known: it is not my intention to “bash” individual members of the Roman system. I’m sure these people believe with all their heart that Rome is the seat of all power in the church, and that Mary is answering their prayers. Just like Mormons believe the Book of Mormon is from God Himself and that Joseph Smith was His prophet. Just like Muslims believe they are going to “Paradise” if their “good deeds” and alms outweigh their “bad things.” So please do keep that in mind.

The Roman Catholic Church has taken it upon herself to misappropriate the word 'catholic' and apply it to herself. So, whenever you read one of the Early Church Fathers (ECFs) use the Greek word καθολικός (katholikos, catholic, universal), Rome says, “See? They were Catholic” (BIG-‘C’). But here’s their problem: the ECFs were using καθολικός in the “universal” sense—NOT the “Romish” sense. Another word they have appropriated is “Tradition.” Any time they see the word “Tradition” used by Augustine or Gregory of Nyssa or Cyprian—they take it to mean the “Traditions” that Rome has adopted. Therefore, they tell their followers, “See? These men taught that people back then should follow the old traditions! ” This, too, is faulty reasoning. Because what Rome has done is take a word that looked back in time and applied it to things they have added to Scripture (more on sola scriptura may come at a later date, but not here). All that being said, let’s begin by looking back at the founding of Christ’s church.

If you ask Rome, they will tell you that the headship of the church was given to Peter, in Matthew 16:18, when Jesus told Simon Peter, “And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.” However, in calling His disciples, Jesus never tells any of them that they will be the “visible head” of His church—unless you subscribe to the Romish misinterpretation of His words in Matthew 16:18. So when it all boils down, the validity of the Roman Catholic Church rests upon two things:

(1) The interpretation of a single verse of Scripture; and
(2) Whether or not one regards the ECFs as being of equal authority as Scripture.

I will answer these in reverse order. Are the writings of the Early Church Fathers (e.g., Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Chrysostom, Eusebius) of equal authority with the Bible? The answer to this question is, emphatically, “No!” How can I say that? For this reason: what was Jesus’ number one reason for His opposition to the Pharisees? Simple: they had allowed the "Tradition" of rabbinical writings (e.g., the Midrash) to supersede the word of the Tanakh—the God-breathed Scriptures. Many times, during the Sermon on the Mount, we read that Jesus told the people, “You have heard it said…but it is written...” Likewise, we could say of Roman doctrine, “You say…..but it is written..…” Anytime we give more weight to the ideas of men than we do to Scripture, the result is going to be messy.

Now, to answer (1). I could list all kinds of quotes that Rome uses to try and bolster their claim. I doubt, however, that we have enough bandwidth to contain the quotes themselves, nor the full quotes that show how Rome has taken them out of context. But, I will begin with what may be the most famous out-of-context quote, that of Augustine: “Rome has spoken; the case is closed” (it is sometimes rendered in other, but similar, forms). But is that what Augustine actually said? Answer: “No!” From an article by James White on this very issue:

[Karl] Keating puts these words in quotes, indicating that Augustine actually said this. He places it in the context of Papal Infallibility. It is clearly his intention to communicate to his readers that Augustine 1) said these words, and 2) was speaking about the subject in his sermon. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Augustine never said what Keating quotes. In fact, here is the actual Latin text of the final section of Sermon 131 from Migne, PL 38:734:

Jam enim de hac causa duo concilia missa sunt ad sedem apostolicam; inde etiam rescripta venerunt; causa finita est: Utinam aliquando finiatur error.

Translated, it reads,

. . . for already on this matter two councils have sent to the Apostolic See, whence also rescripts (reports) have come. The cause is finished, would that the error may terminate likewise.

The quote from Augustine comes from a sermon he wrote opposing Pelagianism. Long story short, what he was saying was that the church had condemned this error. And how did they conclude that the error had been refuted? By appealing to Scripture. Augustine was NOT saying that all authority rested in the bishop of Rome. He was saying “The cause is finished, would that the error may terminate likewise.” As Dr. White states it,

“It is obvious, beyond question, that Augustine’s point is that Pelagianism is a refuted error. It is not refuted because the bishop of Rome has refuted it. It is refuted because it is opposed to Scripture. Two councils have concluded this, and the bishop of Rome has agreed.”

Before we leave Augustine, there is one more quote from him I must share. Rome likes to say that Augustine was the chief defender of Roman Catholic teaching, especially equating Peter with “the Rock” upon Christ was to build His church. Read the following to see if this is true (emphases mine):

In a passage in this book, I [Augustine] said about the Apostle Peter: ‘On him as on a rock the Church was built’...But I know that very frequently at a later time, I so explained what the Lord said: ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,’ that it be understood as built upon Him whom Peter confessed saying: ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ and so Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has received ‘the keys of the kingdom of heaven.’ For, ‘Thou art Peter’ and not ‘Thou art the rock’ was said to him. But ‘the rock was Christ,’ in confessing whom, as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter. (The Fathers of the Church (Washington D.C., Catholic University, 1968), Saint Augustine, The Retractations, Chapter 20.1). [from The Church Fathers' Interpretation of the Rock of Matthew 16:18 by William Webster]

I could go on, but I think you get the general idea. Rome picks out part of a quote that is part of a much larger picture—a quote that is not meant to be interpreted the way Rome says it is—and automatically, it becomes part of “sacred Tradition,” and is used by RCC apologists as a “smoking gun” concerning Petrine primacy.

However, this idea—that Peter alone had the power to “bind and loose”—is, in fact, contrary to Scripture. For Jesus gave this right to the other apostles as well. Consider His words in Matthew 18:18— “Assuredly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” The same promise, made to all 12—not just Peter! And not made to any of their successors. Years and years of “Tradition” and volume after volume of apologetic work cannot wipe out the clear words of our Lord, contained in the Scriptures!

So, was there, indeed, a succession of bishops in Rome? Answer: yes.....kind of. One cannot say for certain whether the "succession" of the bishops of Rome has been unbroken, considering the many schisms, divisions, and turmoil that has surrounded the office. Peter was followed by Linus, who was followed by Anancletus, who was followed by Clement…etc. There is no denying this historical fact. However, it is is never equated with the “visible head of the (big-'C') Catholic church" until Damasus I in about 366 AD. It was this Damasus who was the first to use a title such as “Pope” in reference to the bishop of Rome. However, this was read back into the Scripture—it was not brought out of them. Although this view (and all the other dogmas) may be held by the current “bishop of Rome” (Benedict XVI at the time of this writing, if he is indeed the worthy holder of such title)—this is not the view that was held by the early church until being promulgated a great while after the founding of the true church. As Dr. White points out in a debate with RCC apologist Fr. John Mary (emphases mine):

[Rome holds] a succession of names, not a succession of teaching or truth. Not only does such a succession beg the questions raised by such historical events as the Babylonian Captivity of the Church (14th century) and the Great Papal Schism, but it ignores the fact that while President Clinton, for example, stands in the succession of Presidents, one would not wish to assert that his views, and his "teachings," are in any way reflective of someone such as Abraham Lincoln. The mere historical "connection" guarantees nothing regarding fidelity to the truth itself.

For example, any idea about the sinlessness of Mary is absent from the writings of such men as Irenaeus, Tertullian, or even Origen. The belief in the bodily assumption of Mary? (emphases mine):

“The idea of the bodily assumption of Mary is first expressed in certain transitus-narratives of the fifth and sixth centuries. Even though these are apocryphal they bear witness to the faith of the generation in which they were written despite their legendary clothing” (Ludwig Ott, Early Christian Doctrines, pp. 209-210).

In fact, the doctrine of Purgatory did not develop until about 590 AD under Pope Gregory the Great (emphases mine):

The concept became much more widespread around 600 A.D. due to the fanaticism of Pope Gregory the Great. He developed the doctrine through visions and revelations of a Purgatorial fire. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia (CE), Pope Gregory said Catholics "will expiate their faults by purgatorial flames," and "the pain [is] more intolerable than any one can suffer in this life." Centuries later, at the Council of Florence (1431), it was pronounced an infallible dogma. It was later reaffirmed by the Council of Trent (1564). The dogma is based largely on Catholic tradition from extra- biblical writings and oral history...The Council of Trent dares to declare that "God does not always remit the whole punishment due to sin together with the guilt. God requires satisfaction and will punish sin...The sinner, failing to do penance in this life, may be punished in another world, and so not be cast off eternally from God." (Session 15, Can. XI). Those Catholic Bishops had the audacity to declare that the suffering and death of God's perfect man and man's perfect substitute was not sufficient to satisfy divine justice for sin.

And for those of you who are good little students and have memorized your Nicene Creed: is there any mention of Marian devotion? Devotion to the Pope? Anything in there about “We believe in Jesus Christ His only Begotten, and the sinlessness of His mother?” No. Why? Because these were doctrines that were not even known even in 325 AD, except by a handful of people here and there, and which had not been adopted by the universal church! To say that what the Romish church teaches now is what the small-‘c’ catholic church has always believed is refuted by a simple study of history. So here goes.

Constantine became emperor in 306 AD, decreed tolerance of Christians in 313 AD, and "converted to Christianity" in about 318 AD. In 316 AD, he established the precedence of the Roman emperor deciding Christian doctrinal matters, essentially setting himself up as the first Pontifex Maximus (a title derived from Roman pagan priests). The Donatist Controversy was his first taste of ecclesiastical judgment, and was one of the earliest schisms in the church. This happened in 316 AD in North Africa. Caecilianus had been elected bishop of Carthage in 311 AD. However, it was later found out that one of the priests who voted for his ordination was a traditor (see definition here). A split ensued, with one side favoring Caecilianus, and the other favoring a fellow named Donatus. The root cause of the split was whether a sacrament (such as ordination), on its own, even when performed by one who is not in good standing with the church is a valid ordination (ex opere operato, "On account of the work that is worked"). Or, is that ordination void because of the one performing it (ex opere operantis, "on account of the work of the worker").

The Donatists held to the position of ex opere operantis, while the Caecilians believed in ex opere operato. Eventually, Rome sided with the Caecilians, with Constantine giving the final verdict after three councils. This was, for all intents and purposes, one of the roots of the Roman Catholic Church. The fact that the Donatists were opposed to a "State Church" may have been one reason that the emperor was less than sympathetic to their cause, and also led to the conflation of Emperor and Pope. The doctrine of ex opere operato is still a central tenet of the giving of sacraments in the Catholic church. Paragraph 1128 of the Catholic Catechism (emphasis mine):

This is the meaning of the Church's affirmation that the sacraments act ex opere operato (literally: "by the very fact of the action's being performed"), i.e., by virtue of the saving work of Christ, accomplished once for all. It follows that "the sacrament is not wrought by the righteousness of either the celebrant or the recipient, but by the power of God." From the moment that a sacrament is celebrated in accordance with the intention of the Church, the power of Christ and his Spirit acts in and through it, independently of the personal holiness of the minister. Nevertheless, the fruits of the sacraments also depend on the disposition of the one who receives them.

So, you can see that in its early years, the whole, universal church was not united, solidly, in lock-step, under the banner of Rome. There were many other schisms (e.g., the Quartodeciman Controversy) that took place as well, the tales of which fill volumes. And keep in mind, whenever there was a split, it was NOT a "vertical separation," i.e., it was not a matter of breaking from Rome's "authority." It was a "horizontal" separation, one side went one way, Rome went the other.

For those that will still say that "Everybody was Catholic before the Reformation," I will point you to another sect that was established by an apostle of Christ. The Coptic Church was founded by the apostle Mark in Alexandria, Egypt, in about 42 AD. It was the subject of the next schism in the church, as they broke ranks with Rome officially after the Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD. One of the reasons for calling the Council of Chalcedon was to rule on the Nestorian heresy. By this point in time, the See of Rome had the favor of the emperor, and thus had been flexing its political clout over the other Sees. This usurpation of power was very troubling to Dioscorus, bishop of Alexandria, who did not believe that secular emperors should meddle in the affairs of the church. Add to the fact that Leo I, Bishop of Rome, was desirous that the Roman See should be the seat of ecclesiastical authority (above even Constantinople, which had been its equal for many years), and Leo's close ties to Emperor Marcianus, and you can understand why Dioscorus was at a disadvantage. It was Leo I, by the way, who was the first to make dogmatic the doctrine of "papal primacy"--the teaching that the Bishop of Rome was endowed with the same "keys" and authority as the apostle Peter and was head of the whole, worldwide, (little-'c') catholic church.

The next few hundred years were a time of some confusion; there was a great deal of debating and establishing doctrines. It was also the time when the Romish church began to exercise its newly-found political power. As Roman Catholicism spread, and as popes became more powerful and influential in secular matters, they got more power-hungry, and sought to stifle any and all opposition to their authority. To that end, they “infallibly” interpreted the Scriptures as saying that they should torture and kill anybody who did not bow to them. This lust for power—and hatred of any who opposed them—led to what we know as “The Inquisition,” when people were arrested, dragged off to stand before popes and councils and bishops, and ordered to recant their “heretical” views. If they did not recant, they were sent to “examiners” who would inflict the same kind of cruelty on these people that the Roman soldiers inflicted upon our Lord.

It was because of this use of force that the RCC grew and spread across Europe. And why very few people spoke up and spoke out against Rome. Which in turn caused it to spread even more quickly. Soon—as had happened in the years prior to and immediately after the earthly life of Christ—all of Europe was under the thumb of Rome. And it is for this reason we don't have a whole lot of theological works being produced which teach anything other than Roman Catholicism--because if a person wrote such a work, something was going to get burned: either (a) the work, or (b) the person (just ask William Tyndale).

But, in 1054 AD, something big happened. It was at this time that the Eastern Orthodox Church split from Rome. Constantinople and Rome could not agree on who was the true leader of the church, and The Great Schism saw the emergence of the Eastern Orthodox Church.

But now wait a minute!! I thought it was Martin Luther that caused everybody to leave Rome! I thought “Everybody was Catholic until the Reformation!” What your garden-variety anti-Protestant loves to go around declaring is that the whole church, all around the world, was unified until 1517. If that was the case, then will the anti-Protestants stand and say that the Eastern Orthodox Church, at the time it split from Rome, was indeed part of the “One True Church?”

Moving on. During the 1100’s, the Waldensians came along, only to be refused permission to preach by the Third Lateran Council. (This is not meant to be an endorsement, on my part, of Waldensian teaching. I do not agree with all they taught. It is for purely historical purposes I include them. You can read some about them here.). Much of what the Waldensians taught was not in line with many of Rome's teachings, and if they were caught teaching such things--well, nearly 80 of them were burned at the stake in one city (Strasbourg, France) alone.

Then in the 1300’s, a fellow named John Wycliffe dared to defy Roman “law” and translate the Bible out of the Latin and into English. Wycliffe managed to live a long life and die a natural death. And for his efforts, Pope Martin V ordered Wycliffe’s body dug up, burned, at the ashes dumped into the River Swift. During the 1400’s, a fellow named Jan Hus came along, becoming a forerunner to men like Zwingli, Calvin, Luther, etc. Then William Tyndale further defied Rome and translated the Greek and Hebrew into English--for which he was strangled and burned. But, remember, it was Martin Luther who was the first one to stand up to Rome! [/sarcasm]

Then in 1378, there was even a division as to whether the seat of (big-'C') Catholic authority was seated in Rome or in Avignon, France. This "Western Schism" lasted for over 40 years. Hardly a time of "unity" within the Roman "Catholic" Church.

So, as you can see, the claim that "Until the Reformation, the Roman Catholic Church was the ONLY church" is patently false. It has no basis in truth, and is a lie that Rome is only too happy to allow to spread. It is not a truth that Martin Luther was the first who came along and tipped the apple cart and broke off to make some "new religion." There were many times during history when churches and Sees divided from Rome over doctrine, authority, etc. My many thanks to the men that have been used so greatly by God to teach us about the true history of the church of our Lord. Men like James White, William Webster, James Swan, Mike Gendron, and so many others to whom we owe so great a debt. May we always thank God in our every remembrance of them (Philippians 1:3-4).

So, that's what they mean by "Papal BULL"

According to the Guardian Unlimited, it seems like good ol' Benny 16 is starting to shovel it with his latest edict:

Coming just four days after the reinstatement of the Latin mass, yesterday's document left no doubt about the Pope's eagerness to back traditional Roman Catholic practices and attitudes, even at the expense of causing offence.

The view that Protestants cannot have churches was first set out by Pope Benedict seven years ago when, as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, he headed the Vatican "ministry" for doctrine. A commentary attached to the latest text acknowledged that his 2000 document, Dominus Iesus, had caused "no little distress".

But it added: "It is nevertheless difficult to see how the title of 'Church' could possibly be attributed to [Protestant communities], given that they do not accept the theological notion of the Church in the Catholic sense and that they lack elements considered essential to the Catholic Church."

Yeah, that's the thing. We Protestants have a whole different view on the Trinity. We believe the Holy Trinity to be GOD the Father, GOD the Son, and GOD the Holy Spirit. Meanwhile, Rome worships the trinity of statues, trinkets, and dead bones.

Hmmm, what saith the Scriptures about statues? Exodus 20:4-5--"You shall not make for yourself a carved image—any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them." Oh, that's right, I forgot. The Catholic Church decided some time back to just kinda snip that little passage out of their Bibles. Or did they put it back in?

Well, at any rate, what saith the Scriptures about the Rosary, and praying to Mary and the dead saints? Isaiah 8:19-20--"...should not a people seek their God? Should they seek the dead on behalf of the living? To the law and to the testimony!" So, what does the Law say about this? Deuteronomy 18:10-11--"There shall not be found among you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire, or one who practices witchcraft, or a soothsayer, or one who interprets omens, or a sorcerer, or one who conjures spells, or a medium, or a spiritist, or one who calls up the dead." Notice how GOD lumps in those who call upon the dead with those who sacrifice their children to Molech?

Oh, and then there's that little matter about paragraph 841 of their Catechism.

841 The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan
of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."

But, yeah, I can see why "Il Popa" would have a problem with those of us who don't bow down and kiss his feet, and give our money to this harlot (Revelation 17) so they can keep that golden dome sparklin' in the Roman sun.